Total posts: 5,875
Posted in:
-->
@sadolite
Your opinion happens to be parallel with reality. Good head you have on your shoulders there Sir.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
Wow, that sounds horrible man.
Doesn't it? Why do you think the religion board has the reputation carried over from DDO?
I'd gladly speak up for you.
I doubt you'd whiplash/backtrack yourself like that for me. But thanks for the sentiment.
Can you show me definitively where this has happened,...
Now watch the atheist with article Gentle Reader. Watch how my "this" (militant atheists never let us.) Morphs into Ludo's "this"...(an atheist just jumps on it and says "Guys stop having this conversation, you're not allowed")
This leads me to wonder, why do you think willows, disgusted, and hari were banned? All religion board regulars? What do you call the convo killers deb-8-bull or Brother Dee Dee posts?
Theists don't bother anymore. Observe your own conduct in some of Stephen's threads. But if you really have a Jones, just look up any old post by disgusted.
Post a link, they must be easy to find.
They are. The mods found them and Gentle Readers avoid them.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
All true. Except that I did not say or imply that Trump was correct or righteous because he spoke his mind.Therefore, just because Donny speaks his mind relative to his conditioning and consequent data store and just because you have been similarly conditioned and therefore tend to agree with him, does not necessarily make either of you correct or righteous.
The pro-life crowd marches and there is no violence, the pro-abortion crowd marches and there is senseless violence. Yet the left says they are tolerant. When Trump says the are not. Is he just speaking his mind relative to his conditioning and consequent data store, or is he right in reality?
Everyone speaks relative to their conditioning and consequent data store, pointing that out a frivolous. The question is, whose position better conforms to reality?
It never is the progressive liberal.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
This story is a fine test subject for the question "If god does it, is it moral?" that so few theists really have an appetite for.
Yet every theist in this thread has addressed that question, and the atheist OP is dodging. How do you explain that?
If you change the names to Satan, God and Job, suddenly you have a number of people, like Ethan, who seem to say no, this is totally fine, God's doing it, and he's got an even BETTER moral code than you.
If your position is so strong, why do you always substitute your paraphrase of my argument to the readers as mine instead of debating me?
You will pretend you're doing running commentary and then later say, as you again do here, that few theists really have an appetite for it.
Has Mopac, EtrnlVw, PGA2.0 or I ever shied away from you or this argument? Your perception is not reality.
I don't expect any to do so here based on what I've read.
And once again your perception will confirm your bias. There is a term for that.
To me they're characters worthy of analysis
Yet when we call your bluff and accept analysis, you begin cackling like donkeys.
Why is God immoral for not observing your personal moral code?
I would say the character is immoral for having a moral code for itself, one that claims to be universal and never wrong and timeless and unwaivering, but something totally different, and punishable by eternal torture, for its creations.
How is that immoral? I had a different moral code for my daughter than I did for me because my daughter and I were not the same. How come you can understand that in normal life but act clueless when it comes to God?
Your implication is that God should be subject to the same laws as you. Why? It makes no sense.
A citizen in France is subject to different laws than you. A husband is subject to different laws than you. An adult is subject to different laws than a child. Please tell me you understand the simple concept that the morality of an action is affected by who a person is.
Let's start by agreeing on how the morality of an act is to be determined. I will present my argument in stages, you can ask questions or rebut, and we will not progress to the next stage till we both agree.
Does that sound fair?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Wouldn't it be better to just post the section of the CoC where one must leave a thread when you request it?
So you are aware of that then. It states when "continually asked to leave a thread".
Listen closely. You will never control me. I would bold the never, but your lame threads have enough bolding already.
Your argument is that you find God's action personally abhorrent. I'm asking you, so what?
Hahahahhahahahhahahahhah And that is your fkn defense is it ??
No. That is just another of my questions you're dodging. Questions cannot be defenses.
I have asked why is life so cheap to this god?
You have not shown that life is cheap to this God. You have only posted your ignorant opinion. Further, you have not answered a single question of mine, where do you get off talking about unanswered questions?
You will be asking me next who am I to question your god.
My God, unlike you, answers questions.
Ted Bundy murdered over 30 women and children also for no reason..
Ted Bundy had a reason.
...are we supposed to say "so what"?
If it was asked me "so what?" I'd be able to answer. Why can't you?
You actually post the question 4 times and still dodge answering it by hiding behind the crazy cackle.
As I said, you want us, by faith, to take your personal judgment of God as objective morality without debate. You want us to simply assume you are right sans argument.
You are so empty, you can't even answer the question, "so what?"
You say God does not observe your personal moral code. So what?
Bwaahahahaha!!!
Is that your logical answer then?
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
@bmdrocks21
But when viewed in comparison with Donnie was Ronnie really that much of a conservative?
Yes. During Reagan's time, the left had not yet infected mass media and did not seem as pervasive as now.
On which conservative issues does Trump differ from Reagan?
Ronald Reagan wasn't very fiscally conservative.
Zed asked for my minds eye version of a conservative, not my ideal conservative policy.
He cut taxes, but also increased a lot of spending
American Presidents have very little control concerning overall spending. Congress does. And Democratic congresses make sure to paint Republican Presidents as "cutting social welfare for the poor" so as to pork up the budget as much as possible.
The funny thing is, If Trump cuts the budget, they accuse him of not caring for the poor, and if he increases the budget, they accuse him of not being republican.
When he tries to bypasses congress, they stop it and argue that only congress has the authority to appropriate money, but when we go over budget, they blame Trump!
The OP's question, "More immigration, or increased social spending?" is a fake one anyway, as more immigration will mean increased social spending. What does the OP mean with "OR"? Is he implying we can have increased immigration without increased social spending?
Created:
-->
@Stephen
It was a polite request...
Ethan doesn't do requests.
I have had my answer.
How did one get past your obtuse glasses?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
This other brother can't deny!
Lol!! I went looking for your posts and found this gem. Deserves to be in the retort HOF.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
The answer to the OP from those who have contributed has been pretty unanimous.
Was it consensus you were seeking?
The identity of serpent in the garden of Eden was Satan.
Was that what your thread was supposed to tell us? Because the bible does not tell us that.
You have said so yourself.
Untrue. You just don't read very well.
And yet you keep posting to it. But this is true for all of your threads I've seen so far.So there is no need for this thread to continue at all really.
So I ask you again. Please leave the thread .
And I answer you again. No.
You do not dictate where I go, when or where I post, or what I post. You never, ever will. So don't waste your breadth.
But if it is your childish clumsy way to make a "record" to influence the mods later, go ahead.
I hope you know they too see you dodging questions and pretending the topic has not been addressed.
Created:
-->
@Pinkfreud08
This is incorrect and unfair. The man said,
...social policies which would further isolate distinct social groups based upon ethnicity,
American conservatives make policies for Americans, not foreigners. Foreigners are ALREADY a distinct and isolated social group.
Further, Trumps immigration policies are not based on ethnicity but on behavior. And it is prudent and correct to isolate groups based on behavior. This is why we imprison murders and deport dangerous foreigners.
So do you have an example of American conservatives advocating social policies which further isolate distinct American social groups based upon ethnicity?
I don't think you can.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Outplayz
Lol. That is a little like the 5 year old kid who, once he learns that as an adult he won't want to play with G.I. Joe dolls, no longer wants to become an adult.
If we told a 5 year old what it was like being an adult, which of them would think it was great? None, because they would all be judging adulthood through 5 year old eyes.
None of us has the faintest clue what it's like to be God, and even the thread's question assumes God get board or needs to be occupied with something.
Its like the 5 year old asking, "If adults don't play with dolls, what do adults do for fun?"
The gap between us and God, is greater than the gap between 5 year olds and adults so the comparison doesn't capture the full immature absurdity of the question.
Created:
-->
@Pinkfreud08
Can you produce an example of such a policy?...advocate social policies which would further isolate distinct social groups based upon ethnicity,
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
I will keep log of the times I have requested I ask you to leave a thread.
Wouldn't it be better to just post the section of the CoC where one must leave a thread when you request it?
You not have addresses the topic and it is clear to see.
Well now, let's see how clear it is that I have not addressed the topic.
I posted the following, (with bold showing where the topic was addressed.)
This is not an attack. It is true, and since if I ask you, what makes God's actions immoral? You will dodge the question, I can only gleen your answer from your comments in other places.
Opposition to your argument is not a personal attack. Dismembering your shoddy logic is not an attack, that is what you should expect on a debate board.
You say God is immoral. I ask, why should God follow your personal moral code? You claim I'm "attacking" you.
I'm attacking your illogical argument. You said,...
All murder of innocent people is abhorrent...
Who made it murder? You? Who made them innocent? You? Abhorrent to whom? You?
Please stop being fake. Your entire argument is a personal one. Your argument is that you find God's action personally abhorrent. I'm asking you, so what? Why is God immoral for not observing your personal moral code?
Now, tell us again how I have not addresses your argument.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Deny away. I don't care.
Well, you at first said I had nothing to deny. Now you say you don't care. On a debate site no less!
...he surrounded himself with rich influential people.
That lie has been debunked. Jesus did not seek out rich people.
And he couldn't be more clear when he forces home the point, he says :
“But woe to you who are rich,
for you have already received your comfort.Luke 6:24
What point? How does this verse say Jesus surrounded Himself with rich people?
I have shown some of these rich and influential people
You first tried to conflate them with Jesus' 12 disciples, and you have not shown that Jesus surrounded Himself with them.
"woman of substance" showered on Jesus worth $30 grands worth in today's money.
What it's worth today means nothing. 2,000 years ago uranium was worth nothing. What were the spices worth in Jesus' day? It was expensive, but it did not make her rich.
You can deny that too, but it won't change the fact.
Deny what? How much you think the spices was worth is not a fact, its your uneducated guess. And even if you got the cost right, it would not mean she was rich.
You on the other hand although denying what I have wrote haven't produced a single piece of evidence that proves what I say yo be wrong.
Got your obtuse glasses on again huh? You dodged the points I posted and then say I haven't produced a single piece of evidence. Lol. OK emperor, at least the Gentle Readers see it.
My gospel recorded someone as saying this, not that it was true.
Yes it does doesn't it
The Bible is like a history book genius. It reports falsehoods and truth. Just because it is the bible recording Judas saying something, does not mean what he is recorded as saying is true.
...although you denied that too didn't you?
Of course. You posted a verse calling Judas a liar and a thief. Why do you believe him? So you can make this ridiculous claim that Jesus was biased and hypocritical.
You actually side with Judas, the one stealing from the poor, and call Jesus, the one healing the poor, uncaring about the poor! Tell me your moral compass isn't broken.
And now your really on the back foot and painted into a corner you are now questioning the and the point they may not be true? YOU WANT IT BOTH FKN WAYS!!!!
Lol! Really, cursing doesn't help you. You have given us your opinion based only on your ignorance and bias.
As we examine your claims we find you are both ignorant and dishonest. As we expose you, you get angry, start cursing, and finally run to the mods hoping to get them to give you a win where your lame argument couldn't.
You run from questions, and equivocate in your use of articles. I don't know which is more shameful, that you don't know you do these things, or that you know and don't care.
Either way, your "Entering the Kingdom" clunker is dead. You will of course rant and fume a bit more, continue to dodge the questions put to you, and finally go post another clunker again based on ignorance and half-truths, and we will clobber it again. You will fume and curse, and the process will be repeated.
When I told you I was here for you, I did not lie.
Created:
Posted in:
Notice that the march had no violence. No car burnings, no building windows smashed. No vigilante beatings of people with opposing beliefs.
I wonder if that has anything to do with the darth of progressive liberals who are pro-life? Nah, it's just coincidence.
Right?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
Sorry Sir. You have run out of answer credits.
Please answer some questions if you wish to continue having your own questions answered.
Suggested questions to answer that you have overlooked:
1. Are you implying quoting me as saying "Just kill yourself" is not a lie?
2. Did your lie "quoting" me saying, "just kill yourself" ease your confusion?
Answering either or both will extend your answer credits. Otherwise, please have a nice day Sir.
Created:
And you decide what is worthI ask you to leave this thread unless you have something worth contributing further to the subject in hand.
contributing?
At some point you will awaken and comprehend that you are no one's boss.
... it seems to be a useless question to ask. [Snip] You're using bold, underline and all caps to ask a question that you've provided a good answer for yourself. You've provided good evidence to accept that answer. But even if that answer is wrong, it proves nothing. It wouldn't create any contradictions. However, you're still asking it like it's some kind of earth-shattering question.
This is from this thread. Can I not comment on it? Is this also a personal attack?
...something worth contributing further to the subject in hand.
Ah, you must have missed it with your obtuse glasses on. Here it is again.
Who was the Serpent in Genesis? The biblical answer is "The son of perdition", Satan's #1 general, the anti-christ, a demon called " The Beast".
Now dodge it and claim you saw nothing again. Perhaps your pretending that I've contributed nothing will fool someone other than you.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
It was at least worth the equivalent of " a years wages" and could have been "sold for more"
Your post said 2 days wages. Are you contradicting your post?
No need for vulgarity Steve. My gospel recorded someone as saying this, not that it was true. You said the person saying this was a liar and a thief. Are you backtracking?...according to YOUR OW FKN gosples. So stop with your lies .
You just cannot face the fkn fact. You have nothing to dispute this so simply turn to telling lies. which of course is what you ALWAYS DO.
I have posted what I dispute, but you have avoided addressing it.
This seem a very bias and hypocritical statement coming from the Christ when we consider that he had surrounded himself with very rich and influential disciples.
This is untrue. I have said so. But you want to stay on the price of the spices Mary used. It's insignificant to the argument.
1. You were equivocal on the word disciple, 2. Jesus did not "surround" Himself with rich disciples, and therefore your conclusion that it was hypocritical of Jesus to say it was difficult for the rich to enter Heaven is false.
Now, dodge that and tell us again how I have nothing to dispute.
They were all rich and influential people , princess.
At least you've given up the misleading fakery of calling them disciples.
You've presented no facts. Your unattributed quote, which you contradict, does not support your case.
I have presented verses, and explanations from the culture and context, and as usual, you have dodged every question asked of you.
You cannot win by being obstinate or obtuse. Neither of those tricks will work here.
Questions you've dodged:
*If Jesus' disciples were rich, how come they lived in poverty? Often sleeping outside for example?
*If Jesus' disciples were rich, why did they need charity?
*Why did Mary and Joseph offer two birds, the cost for the poor, instead of a sheep as their offering, if they were rich?
*Why did Jesus need to send Peter to fish to gain the money to pay taxes if they were rich?
*If Jesus was rich, why did He need to borrow someone's donkey?
Lies you've told:
*That's; around almost 30 grand!!!!!! in today's money, princess.
*And this wasn't the first time either.
*They were throwing it over Jesus like there was no tomorrow.
*Judas came from a rich family.
*The disciples had flourishing businesses.
Now, dodge all that again, and tell us how I have nothing to dispute. Go ahead.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
You made this thread Steve.
Your Post 18 above; are all personal attack directed at the person and not the subject matter of the thread.
None of that was attacks, much less personal.
I said, "If you ask Stephen what makes God's actions immoral, he will cite his personal moral code based on human suffering, and claim God is immoral for not obeying his personal moral code."
This is not an attack. It is true, and since if I ask you, what makes God's actions immoral? You will dodge the question, I can only gleen your answer from your comments in other places.
Opposition to your argument is not a personal attack. Dismembering your shoddy logic is not an attack, that is what you should expect on a debate board.
You say God is immoral. I ask, why should God follow your personal moral code? You claim I'm "attacking" you.
I'm attacking your illogical argument. You said,...
All murder of innocent people is abhorrent...
Who made it murder? You? Who made them innocent? You? Abhorrent to whom? You?
DO NOT MAKE THIS A PERSONAL ISSUE.!!! AGAIN!!!!!!
Please stop being fake. Your entire argument is a personal one. Your argument is that you find God's action personally abhorrent. I'm asking you, so what? Why is God immoral for not observing your personal moral code?
You can dodge the questions again, it will only serve to show you cannot address the lack of logic in your position.
Of all the examples of the unnecessary, wanton, willful and wastefully killing committed by god
Unnecessary, wanton, willful and wasteful are all just your subjective opinions. You want us to accept them as established fact. Why? Simply because you think they are? I don't think so.
I will be upset when you show actual immorality by God, not just when you whine that God is not doing what you like.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
An uncommon response to confusion is lying. Did your lie "quoting" me saying, "just kill yourself" ease your confusion?
I did not put quote mark around random words. When I was using the words you used, I put quote marks on them. Sorry you found honesty "confusing".
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
I don't know what you're on about. Or who's wallowing in the past.
His argument was not sound.
Created:
Posted in:
Perhaps reading the pointless bitter silliness in this thread is fun for God.
This is how you chose to spend your life? The equivalent of childish grafitti using the board as a bathroom stall?
"D'uh, God doesn't do drugs, drink, or have tats, what does he do for fun?"
God doesn't need to have fun even.
Gets morphed in the DD fake quote machine to,
God doesn't have fun.
If God told lies, he'd have a little fun, according to some dofuses.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
The question was not, "Are you implying anything in your quote?" Though you would like it to be.I am not "implying" anything in my "quotes".
The question was,
Are you implying quoting me as saying "Just kill yourself" is not a lie?
Dodge much?
Are you "implying" that I am?
No. I am asserting you are lying in your quote. Notice the word lying above is not in quotes.
Created:
Posted in:
All such complaints boil down to is,
"God don't obey my personal moral code."
And the only question to that is, "So what?" This is "like" bacteria accusing the medical doctor of murder.
If you ask Stephen what makes God's actions immoral, he will cite his personal moral code based on human suffering, and claim God is immoral for not obeying his personal moral code. But will also argue that there is no objective morality, all the while insisting their subjective personal morality should cover God!
The hubris is astounding.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
You really need to do some homework. Come back when you have at least researched what it is you are denying.
Here is what I am denying.
This seem a very bias and hypocritical statement coming from the Christ when we consider that he had surrounded himself with very rich and influential disciples.
And so far, you have dodged instead of addressing this lie.
Give or take
Please attribute quotes when you post them.
...valued at 300 denarii...
Valued by whom? Two days wages made Mary "rich"? So working for a week made a person fabulously rich? Do you read your posts before you publish them?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
As long as I observe site CoC, I can, and will post anywhere I like.
You don't want me around because I blow up your bogus claims and point out that you dodge questions.
This is simply a request and in no way should be taken as an order.
You can rest easy on that my friend.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
Are you implying quoting me as saying "Just kill yourself" is not a lie?
I don't understand why you would keep "tagging" me in your "posts" if all you are going to do is say I am a "liar".
Remember you tagged me first and kept tagging me. Are you tired now?
I said other stuff too, but I can appreciate how that part would hard for you to assimilate.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
There was on that particular thread that you cut and pasted that quote from and you brought parts of that dispute to an unrelated thread.
Untrue. Calling mopac a sheep was not the dispute on that thread. I asked you a simple question about a comment you made related to your behavior on the current thread, and you went ballistic.
Obviously you just don'r care about the rules here do you?
I don't care about your bogus attempt to convince the mods that it was a violation of the cross contamination rule.
I do care though that it is an attempt to dodge the question.
You just cannot seem to grasp the difference. Never mind. It is not for me to sort out, is it.
What about your comment in this thread I pointed out to you? Why are you dodging that?
Do you grasp the difference? Hmmm?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
Lying by making up fake comments and putting them in quotes as if I made them is dishonesty, not humor.
But I do notice you are better at dishonesty than at humor.
...bit busy for the next few months to be planning suicides.
Lol. I guess living with the consequences is not as bad as you first implied eh?
Not to worry. I'm sure your mom will shoulder the blame for that "poor decision" till you tire again of "living" with those consequences.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Cross-Thread Contamination - Cross-thread contamination is when a user brings up disputes...
There was no dispute. I simply asked you a question.
Cross-thread contamination is when a user brings up disputes elsewhere on the site up in an unrelated thread for the purpose of harassing, mocking, or insulting another member.
You wrote, in this very thread...
Just recently I had two different and conflicting answers from Christians on a thread of mine. But when one realized the other was also a Christian, their answers and opinions quickly merged into a - ' well yes, it could mean that too ' . type of conversation; neither wanted to be shown to be wrong while not actaully conceding anything or as little ground as possible. So this meant after two clear and distinct answers, I ended up with two different answers from both these Christians who only a few posts before were in direct opposition with strong extremely opposing views.
How is this not you bringing up disputes elsewhere on the site in an unrelated thread for the purpose of harassing, mocking, or insulting these two Christians?
How was my simple question about a comment you made harassment? How was it mocking? How was it insulting?
How does what you just did here not a violation of the Cross-thread contamination rule?
But thanks, you just showed that you cannot answer a simple question to your current behavior based on a comment you made on record.
Thats good enough for me.
Created:
-->
@rbelivb
"No one who has honestly analysed survey data on individuals - the gold standard for public opinion research - can deny that white majority concern over immigration is the main cause of the rise of the populist right in the West. This is primarily explained by concern over identity, not economic threat." - Eric Kaufmann (expert on political demography)
This is misleading.
Can anyone deny that female majority concern over sexual harassment is the main cause of the rise of the "Me Too Movement" in the West. This is primarily explained by concern over gender, not bodily threat."
So fear of men, not fear of sexual harassment, is to blame for the me too movement? Misleading.
Your argument treats collorary conditions, (race) as causal.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Hey genius, the cross thread contamination edict is not that comments you made elsewhere cannot be mentioned.
If you said that you object to people giving interpretations without evidence, and then do that in another thread, I bring up your comment, not the topic of the thread your comment is in. You cannot win me by making up fake offenses.
Do you remember this hypo?
Just recently I had two different and conflicting answers from Christians on a thread of mine.
You wrote that on ANOTHER THREAD just recently. And YOU yet AGAIN!!!! have purposely cross threaded topic which is against the forum rules that you continually break while accusing others of doing so.
Do you see why your constant reporting is taken with a grain of salt?
Contamination is about topics shemp, not about comments.
Now, how can you be against interpretations without evidence when you yourself do that often, and then reply that you don't care?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
Choose Life: Your Mother Did.
Not my fault,...
It's a fault?
..the blame for that poor decision falls squarely on her shoulders.
Well, you would know. But if that decision is poor because of what you did after your birth, then the decision is bad not for anything your mom did.
Yet who is made to live with the consequences? Myself and everyone around me.
You are an atheist right? You can always go back to the nothingness you believe you come from.
Your Dad gets a pass huh?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
So one item makes them rich?
yes!!!! ONE SINGLE ITEM!!!!
Sorry. That is just silly. Especially given that the bible flatly contradicts you, and their recorded behavior showed poverty.
Worth MORE THAN three hundred denarii ”
You have no clue how much it was worth.
In those days without refrigeration, spices were essentials, not luxury items.
They were throwing it over Jesus like there was no tomorrow.
That is another one of your dishonest claims. There is only one single instance of it while Jesus was alive.
Time for me to show the gentle your tail bone again. You will dodge this, so I'm going to mention it so that the Gentle Reader sees you dodge.
The woman putting the spices on Jesus was so poor, she had to use her hair as a cloth, indicating she was not rich.
Oh yes the heartfelt consideration he had shown "the poor " here is fkn staggering.
And there you go. All the fakery about disciples and wealth so that you could go on to make this additional bogus claim.
Jesus didn't care about the poor. Lol!
But what did "our lord Jesus" have to say when someone complained?
Who complained Pedro? Judas. Lol. Didn't you just tell us that Judas did not care for the poor?
But here you are, attacking Jesus as not caring based on the complaint of one you claimed didn't care!
And then to show your dishonesty and fakery, you edit out Jesus' response pertaining to what the woman was doing.
Jesus said it was a one time thing, for the special occasion of his upcoming burial.
It was the first and only time, not throwing all over Him. That is just another lie you need to float your fakery.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
Many reasons, but a main one is that the militant atheists would never let us.Like why doesn't PGA2.0 try to convert Mopac, or Dr Franklin try to make Ethang5 come around to his way of thinking?
Every post by a theist here is immediately attacked by an atheist. Every convo between theists is sniped at from the sidelines by disgruntled atheists.
Their only purpose being here seems to be to attack, condemn, and mock.
The original idea of a religion board was so that people who were interested in the topic (theist and non) could discuss it. But now it has degraded into bitter, compulsive anti-theists who reside on the religion board, essentially making the same provocative posts over and over, forcing every topic to change into a "Does God exist? question regardless of the threads original topic.
Etrnl has some very interesting ideas, and I'd love to hear more of mopac's church beliefs, or have PGA expound on Christian history, but we'd immediately have morons yelling "Fight! Fight!" from the wings.
Virtually every discussion on the religion board is derailed by troll-like behavior. The new mod team has improved this with the removal of Hari and Disgusted, but more work needs to be done.
But anyway. That is why.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
"WE"!!!? I suggest that you speak for yourself and not the whole forum.
I didn't speak for anyone genius. Alec said Ya'll, which caused me to ask him what I did. It was a question about what he said, not a comment saying we did not like Dee Dee. Reading comprehension is a beyatch huh?
I have nothing against the Brother, whereas you have an axe to grind with anyone who doesn't agree with you or who refuses to sycophantically pander to you with an outstretched tongue .
Yeah, you and Dee Dee are regular angels compared to mean ol Ethan.
Here is something you said once,
As far as I am concerned he is trying to give his interpretation, without evidence.
Giving interpretation without evidence is what you do, and when you're asked for evidence, you get angry and act like the person is asking you to sycophantically pander to them with an outstretched tongue.
This is a debate site. You make a claim or state a belief, and people agree or challenge your claim. You then offer logic for your claim and it is discussed. But stating a claim, and offering no evidence for it, and then saying you don't care if anyone disagrees, is counterproductive for this site. Are you here to debate or preach? We have church for preaching.
Debate your points, don't just assert them and then get vulgar if we refuse to accept them on faith. Have some evidence. An intellectual challenge is not an insult.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
Which if any of the proposals in the second conclusion do you agree with..
You mean premises right?
and if there are any you do not then how did you reach the conclusion?
Oh, now it's my turn to say sorry for not clarifying before!
I just assumed you'd know that If the premises were not mine, then the conclusion from those premises wouldn't be either.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
Of course you do. After all, it is your premise.I disagree with it. Sorry for not clarifying before.
Created:
Posted in:
Trump will be the only American president to ever speak at the March for life.
He has upheld religious liberty, has put common sense judges on the bench, is getting rid of the silly business killing environmental extremism, and always transparently says exactly what's on his mind.
I saw a sign at last years march.
Choose Life: Your Mother Did.
I'm not ashamed of Trump at all.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
No you can't DD. I didn't "come" with either premise.I can see where you are coming from with premise one and two...
Disagreeing with your own premises is comedy gold....but I would disagree with both.
Premise three is pretty absurd in my experience.
But do you agree or disagree with it? Wait. What do I care whether you agree with your own premise?
Lol
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Alec
Since yall don't like him for being extreme,
Is that why we don't like him, or is that why you think we don't like him?
Does this logic also extend to Sulimani? Hitler? Bin Laden?...it makes me think he's doing God's will,
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
The argument is internally consistent but I would take issue with both premise one and two.
I would too. Neither one is my premise.
Calm down DD. I meant it as a compliment. You do have a sense of humor, I just didn't know it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
I agree with Zed on his thoughts about your custard egging. While I disagree with his conclusions on the existence of objective morality, at least he is consistent with the implications of his conclusions.
Sorry it has taken me so long to reply, will try to get to it by tomorrow.
Created:
In these types of debates, people conflate 2 different questions.
1. Who is this serpent God speaks to in Genesis?
And 2. Was there really a talking serpent in Genesis?
The questions aren't the same. Atheists ask question 1, when they really mean question 2. But the theist, not being a mind reader, can only answer what was asked.
If the atheist is trying to find out if the story is true, asking about a small detail inside the story is a strange way to go about it, no?
Who was the Serpent in Genesis? The biblical answer is "The son of perdition", Satan's #1 general, the anti-christ, a demon called " The Beast".
This answer is correct whether the story itself is literal or metaphorical.
Either way, as SirAnon says,
It wouldn't create any contradictions.
But notice...
However, you're still asking it like it's some kind of earth-shattering question.
He behaves as if all his questions are earth-shattering for Christians. Dodging and preening till an answer is given that matches his pre-cooked agenda.
Most times he bakes his fake "contradiction" inside his question with fakery and equivocation.
What is Steven trying to do here? He thinks he sowing doubt. Think about it.
The constant fake questions, the weird interpretations, the pretense not to see replies, the needless reposting of the same verses....
Do you know any atheist more consumed with the minutia of Christian doctrine than Stephen?
Created:
-->
@Stephen
SirAnon - asking a question with a little all caps and plenty of bold gives a rather different impression.
Stephen - For emphasis, SirAnonymous. As some here continually actually forget the question at hand and would rather give their interpretation of everything without actaully addressing what is being asked.
Who? Everyone here answered your question. My answer was not technically Satan. You dodged it, which is fine, but then you come back and say your question was not being addressed. Why lie?
It is not ever meant as an offence.
You are often condescending and vulgar in your posts. How it that not meant to be offensive?
You for instance took the direct approach to my question whereas others have gone off on their own tangents leaving my question in the dust.
No one left your question in the dust. I even went through the history to show the fulfillment in John, of the prophesy made TO the serpent in Genesis. You dodged that too.
I am sure you understand my meaning.
I'm sure he does, here is what he said to you.
... it seems to be a useless question to ask. It's as though I asked you why my pizza tasted bad while simultaneously pointing out that my pizza has pineapple. You would then respond, "It probably tastes bad because there's pineapple on it," to which I would then reply, "But you don't know for certain, do you? Why does my pizza taste bad?" You're using bold, underline and all caps to ask a question that you've provided a good answer for yourself. You've provided good evidence to accept that answer. But even if that answer is wrong, it proves nothing. It wouldn't create any contradictions. However, you're still asking it like it's some kind of earth-shattering question. I don't understand what you're trying to do here.
See? He does understand.
Created:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Not even the gates of hell will prevail against it.
But watch out. He may not "see" for very long.
Created:
Posted in:
They were very much relevant to the electorate in 2016."Would have" questions aren't relevant when discussing who was the better candidate at election time.
Thank God they were, or we'd now be saddled with a terrible economy, flooded borders, and looming war with North Korea.
Created:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
The "substance" shows the membership...
Your posts have no substance Dee Dee, and I am not swayed by appeals to popularity. Not only that, I also know the membership thinks of you as a troll clown.
DEBATEART making a Bible fool of yourself.
I know looking like a fool matters a great deal to you, but it fails to move me. I don't care. Telling everyone over and over only shows how much you fear it.
When you hold a title like this...
No one holds any title outside your pretend world Dee Dee. Role play on the net is for children.
Your entire several paragraph post only to say you dislike me in your pretend world.
Do you actually think you're liked and respected among the membership? But it is what you crave though isn't it. That is what you talk about when you aren't talking about me.
Lol. You want to be loved and respected. But you don't know how to go about it. You lack social skills, so you use being a jerk to get attention. Any attention will do.
You're going to love me.
Created: